Imagine a scenario in which plaintiff, a lung cancer patient, claims a delay of two weeks in diagnosis caused him harm. He argues that while he may likely have been doomed in any event, he has been deprived of some opportunity for survival for some period of time.1
In other words, the plaintiff may assert as his claim that he was deprived of an opportunity or chance to be cured. While the case of Kallenberg v. Beth Israel Hospital2 is often credited with the genesis of the loss of chance doctrine in New York, close scrutiny of that case reveals that the court in Kallenberg did not utilize such language and probably did not intend that the concept be introduced at all.3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
